With regard to recent immigration to England/UK. Well there are at least 6 million people in the UK who have at least one Irish grandparent, thus entitled to Irish citzenship.

If you factor in immigration since the 19th century the figure for British citizens with some Irish ancestry jumps to about 14 million!

Very true and we should probably factor this is when we consider the DNA of modern English people with Irish ancestry.

The main destinations for Irish immigrants to Britain were Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester and London but their descendants are likely spread around England now as are the Welsh and Scottish who have moved to England in modern times.

Yes, an example I know well is Middlesbrough, once a Victorian 'Infant Hercules' on the north east coast of England. It was little more than a farm in 1830 but by 1871, with the boom in industry, the population was 40,000. It was said to be second to Liverpool for the numbers of Irish immigrants. In 1871 3,200 inhabitants were Irish born, 1,531 Welsh, 1,368 Scots, 1,169 West Midlanders, 600 from overseas. East Anglians and Cornishmen migrated there too. (Figures from 'Northern Roots' by David Simpson, 2005). The population of Middlesbrough today is 138,400.

Interesting, I didn't know about the Irish in Middlesbrough. So, in 1871 roughly 6,000 of the town's 40,000 inhabitants were recent Celtic arrivals. I suppose their descendants are spread all over today.

The Anglo-Saxons did eventually settle all over what is now England, but it took them a considerable amount of time to do that, and probably only after a considerable amount of assimilation of the native population. The 5th century Anglo-Saxons in the core A-S foothold regions in the south and east were probably a more directly continental population than the "Anglo-Saxons" who later spread to the west and north. I think you see this reflected in the relative proportions of U106 and L21 in the south and east versus the north and west.

I think your assessment here is probably true, it's just I'd like more data to confirm it. Particularly for Western England which was poorly sampled by Busby et al 2011.

if we look at the place name evidence then the Anglo-Saxons settled much further west than that. The kingdom of Wessex stretched as far as Devon and Anglo-Saxon Mercia encroached on the Welsh border at Offa's Dyke. We see Anglo-Saxon or Danish place names all over England as recorded in the Domesday Book 1086, even as far as Eastern Cornwall.

Bear in mind that the Anglo-Saxon-Danish "invasion" wasn't really a one off event; it occurred in spits and spats over several hundred years. Although there must have been large battles somewhen, most of this time could have been filled with gradual expansion and assimilation, i.e. making alliances with locals via intermarriage, etc.

If largescale settlement took place on the east coast, control of the rest of the country could have been gained via an anglo-saxon elite leading merged forces of Angles-Saxons and native Britains (e.g. the Mercians). Once control was gained names were imposed on some settlements

True, the Anglo-Saxon period lasted from the 5th century to 1066AD so we must consider the varying degrees of Native Briton survival in each part of England during this time. The story could have been different depending on whether we are in Wessex, Merica or Northumbria. For instance, I recall that the midlands area of Leicestershire/ Southern Derbyshire was lightly settled by the Romano-Britons so the Angles that pushed into this area did so without much resistance.

We should also consider the impact of the Danes 400 years after the first Anglo-Saxons arrived. The Danelaw was mostly restricted to the north of England so patterns of Native Briton assimilation might vary here compared to Wessex.

I do agree that Western England is likely to have seen a higher survival of L21/Ancient British but then maybe the frequencies for Lancashire are different to that of Devon or Somerset? It's important to consider the precise history of each county/region.

if we look at the place name evidence then the Anglo-Saxons settled much further west than that. The kingdom of Wessex stretched as far as Devon and Anglo-Saxon Mercia encroached on the Welsh border at Offa's Dyke. We see Anglo-Saxon or Danish place names all over England as recorded in the Domesday Book 1086, even as far as Eastern Cornwall.

Bear in mind that the Anglo-Saxon-Danish "invasion" wasn't really a one off event; it occurred in spits and spats over several hundred years. Although there must have been large battles somewhen, most of this time could have been filled with gradual expansion and assimilation, i.e. making alliances with locals via intermarriage, etc.

If largescale settlement took place on the east coast, control of the rest of the country could have been gained via an anglo-saxon elite leading merged forces of Angles-Saxons and native Britains (e.g. the Mercians). Once control was gained names were imposed on some settlements

True, the Anglo-Saxon period lasted from the 5th century to 1066AD so we must consider the varying degrees of Native Briton survival in each part of England during this time. The story could have been different depending on whether we are in Wessex, Merica or Northumbria. For instance, I recall that the midlands area of Leicestershire/ Southern Derbyshire was lightly settled by the Romano-Britons so the Angles that pushed into this area did so without much resistance.

We should also consider the impact of the Danes 400 years after the first Anglo-Saxons arrived. The Danelaw was mostly restricted to the north of England so patterns of Native Briton assimilation might vary here compared to Wessex.

I do agree that Western England is likely to have seen a higher survival of L21/Ancient British but then maybe the frequencies for Lancashire are different to that of Devon or Somerset? It's important to consider the precise history of each county/region.

I know that Mercia was indeed a mixed kingdom. www.historyfiles.co.uk is a very good website. It has quite a few maps that show the many different kingdoms set up in Britain from just after Roman occupation until well after the Anglo-Saxon invasions. Evidently, there were a number of incoming Germans that though, they weren't christians, were exposed to Christianity on the continent and in the case Hwicce possibly left the religious establishment intact.

"603 The first meeting takes place between the Roman Church in the form of St Augustine of Canterbury, and the British/Celtic Church (the descendant of the former British Church of the Roman period). It is arranged when Æthelbert of the Cantware uses the Hwicce as intermediaries, as they possess a church organisation which seems to have survived intact from prior to the Saxon takeover of the region (and probably a ruling elite, although this is not mentioned and no records survive of the names of any rulers from this period). The meeting occurs at a place Bede names at St Augustine's Oak, on the border between the Hwicce territory and that of the West Seaxe (somewhere on the eastern slopes of the Cotswolds, perhaps near Wychwood in Oxfordshire, which means the 'Hwiccas' wood'). The meeting goes favourably for Augustine.

A second meeting is quickly arranged, although perhaps not in the same year. This takes place at Abberley in Worcestershire, probably close to the border between the Hwicce and Pengwern. It is attended by seven bishops of the Celtic Church, along with many learned monks, mainly from Bangor-is-Coed (in Pengwern). The Britons are not impressed with Augustine's imperious manner and the meeting ends in disappointment for the Roman envoy, with no agreements of cooperation or unity being reached between the two churches."Courtesy of www.historyfiles.co.uk

U106 drops like a rock in Wales and Scotland and dwindles to negligible status in Ireland. I think that is an indication that U106 was either not present at all in the Isles prior to arrival of the Anglo-Saxons (my position) or that it had only a vestigial presence before then.

Have people looked at the U106 distribution on smeagle's site recently?

if we look at the place name evidence then the Anglo-Saxons settled much further west than that. The kingdom of Wessex stretched as far as Devon and Anglo-Saxon Mercia encroached on the Welsh border at Offa's Dyke. We see Anglo-Saxon or Danish place names all over England as recorded in the Domesday Book 1086, even as far as Eastern Cornwall.

Bear in mind that the Anglo-Saxon-Danish "invasion" wasn't really a one off event; it occurred in spits and spats over several hundred years. Although there must have been large battles somewhen, most of this time could have been filled with gradual expansion and assimilation, i.e. making alliances with locals via intermarriage, etc.

If largescale settlement took place on the east coast, control of the rest of the country could have been gained via an anglo-saxon elite leading merged forces of Angles-Saxons and native Britains (e.g. the Mercians). Once control was gained names were imposed on some settlements (quite likely by the angle-saxon tax inspector!) and only a minimum number of the allied forces (shire-reeves & reeves?) would be needed to maintain a presence in each conquered area. If any trouble flared up the anglo-saxon elite could mobilise their forces and deal with it.

Just because a village in the west fell under anglo-saxon control doesn't mean that it was filled with blood thirsty Angles and bawdy Saxons. Why would they want to spread dung on fields and pick turnips when they could get the locals to do it?

That's basically right, and I think ethnic mingling was pretty extensive. The Germanic institution of the gefolge (posse comitatus), the warband of young warriors organized around the gift-giving chief, was pretty flexible. Its membership was based on merit, not ethnicity. Just look at how Germanic warriors were assimilated into Hunnic warbands on the Continent in the 4th and 5th centuries for examples. It seems likely to me British warriors took service in the warbands of Anglo-Saxon chiefs. The warband or gefolge was an old Indo-European tradition that the native British Celts knew and understood very well.

Some scholars believe the 6th century "Anglo-Saxon" King of Wessex, Cerdic, was a Briton, the son of the Romano-British chief Elasius. Some of his descendants certainly had British names: Cealwin, Cedda, and Caedwalla.

U106 drops like a rock in Wales and Scotland and dwindles to negligible status in Ireland. I think that is an indication that U106 was either not present at all in the Isles prior to arrival of the Anglo-Saxons (my position) or that it had only a vestigial presence before then.

Have people looked at the U106 distribution on smeagle's site recently?

Bear in mind that the U106 so far collected and displayed on this map is not a representative sample of Britain or any NW European nation. By that I mean that Ireland is more tested than anywhere else in Europe so we would expect some U106 there. But it could be that there is a lot of U106 in Northern Germany/Denmark that hasn't been tested yet. I understand the most tested area of Germany is the western side along the Rhine.

With respect to U106 in Ireland, many of the surnames on the map are actually English so it is likely that U106 arrived in Ireland with English and Lowland Scots plantation settlers in 16/17th centuries.

I think the low incidence of U106 in Wales and Highland Scotland indicates to me that this is an Anglo-Saxon marker.

Bear in mind that the U106 so far collected and displayed on this map is not a representative sample of Britain or any NW European nation. By that I mean that Ireland is more tested than anywhere else in Europe so we would expect some U106 there. But it could be that there is a lot of U106 in Northern Germany/Denmark that hasn't been tested yet. I understand the most tested area of Germany is the western side along the Rhine.

With respect to U106 in Ireland, many of the surnames on the map are actually English so it is likely that U106 arrived in Ireland with English and Lowland Scots plantation settlers in 16/17th centuries.

I think the low incidence of U106 in Wales and Highland Scotland indicates to me that this is an Anglo-Saxon marker.

I agree.

The level of U106 in Ireland and Wales is very low. It is low everywhere in Scotland except at Busby's Northeast Scotland sample location, where the level is oddly high (about 19%, versus L21's 52%). It just so happens that King David I settled a bunch of Northumbrians (Angles) there in the 12th century, so that odd result makes perfect sense and only reinforces the connection between U106 and the Anglo-Saxons.

Is the difference in U106/U152 ratio between north and south due to the small sample size or is this a genuine difference? Is there any other data to verify this?

2 things that might have made a difference bwteen north and south are the normans overrunning the top of Wales but striking alliances with inidigenous princes in the south and, I think, perhaps the greater effect would be an influx of english in the 17 & 1800s seeking employment in the coal mines and steel works around Cardiff/Swansea. Did Busby filter these out (is it possible even?)

Busby's South Wales sample of 9 was taken from Haverfordwest in SW Wales. Southern Pembrokeshire was for a long time referred to as "Little England Beyond Wales" because Henry I planted a colony of Flemish/English there in the 12th century to subjugate the native Welsh. This area has been English speaking for centuries.

The North Wales samples were from Anglesey and Abergele. Given the history of the North Wales coast we might expect a small trace of Viking input from the 10th century settlement on Anglesey and some further English input following the Edwardian conquest 1282. And then again, more English have settled along the North Wales coast in modern times.

Is the difference in U106/U152 ratio between north and south due to the small sample size or is this a genuine difference? Is there any other data to verify this?

2 things that might have made a difference bwteen north and south are the normans overrunning the top of Wales but striking alliances with inidigenous princes in the south and, I think, perhaps the greater effect would be an influx of english in the 17 & 1800s seeking employment in the coal mines and steel works around Cardiff/Swansea. Did Busby filter these out (is it possible even?)

Busby's South Wales sample of 9 was taken from Haverfordwest in SW Wales. Southern Pembrokeshire was for a long time referred to as "Little England Beyond Wales" because Henry I planted a colony of Flemish/English there in the 12th century to subjugate the native Welsh. This area has been English speaking for centuries.

The North Wales samples were from Anglesey and Abergele. Given the history of the North Wales coast we might expect a small trace of Viking input from the 10th century settlement on Anglesey and some further English input following the Edwardian conquest 1282. And then again, more English have settled along the North Wales coast in modern times.

Yes, and I really think a sample of only 9 is just too small and should probably be disregarded or at least taken with a huge grain of salt.

Abergele was an old Roman trading town and has an exceptionally high level of E1b1b to show for it. The Roman presence there may also account for the relatively elevated level of U152 in the North Wales sample. The P312xL21,U152 is also exceptionally high there when compared with its frequency in other western locations. Were the Romans some kind of contributing factor in that regard, as well?

Is the difference in U106/U152 ratio between north and south due to the small sample size or is this a genuine difference? Is there any other data to verify this?

2 things that might have made a difference bwteen north and south are the normans overrunning the top of Wales but striking alliances with inidigenous princes in the south and, I think, perhaps the greater effect would be an influx of english in the 17 & 1800s seeking employment in the coal mines and steel works around Cardiff/Swansea. Did Busby filter these out (is it possible even?)

Busby's South Wales sample of 9 was taken from Haverfordwest in SW Wales. Southern Pembrokeshire was for a long time referred to as "Little England Beyond Wales" because Henry I planted a colony of Flemish/English there in the 12th century to subjugate the native Welsh. This area has been English speaking for centuries.

The North Wales samples were from Anglesey and Abergele. Given the history of the North Wales coast we might expect a small trace of Viking input from the 10th century settlement on Anglesey and some further English input following the Edwardian conquest 1282. And then again, more English have settled along the North Wales coast in modern times.

Yes, and I really think a sample of only 9 is just too small and should probably be disregarded or at least taken with a huge grain of salt.

Abergele was an old Roman trading town and has an exceptionally high level of E1b1b to show for it. The Roman presence there may also account for the relatively elevated level of U152 in the North Wales sample. The P312xL21,U152 is also exceptionally high there when compared with its frequency in other western locations. Were the Romans some kind of contributing factor in that regard, as well?

I believe Capelli et al 2003 sampled 59 people in Haverfordwest but in those days it was just plain old R1b so may not be much use to us now.

I don't think we can rule out a Roman input in North Wales but I would expect it to be less than in England. North Wales was one of the least Romanised areas in Southern Britain if we consider Roman towns, villas and farmsteads.

Basically, we need much better DNA sampling for North Wales. Many of the towns along the coast such as Rhyl, Rhuddlan, Abergele, Conwy and Llandudno have been subject to English influence in medieval and in modern times.

Away from the coast in areas such as Bala, Blaenau Ffestiniog and Llanberis the towns and villages are more 'Welsh.'

With respect to U106 in Ireland, many of the surnames on the map are actually English so it is likely that U106 arrived in Ireland with English and Lowland Scots plantation settlers in 16/17th centuries.

Absolutely, but it does not in any way mean that U106 wasn't also amongst the Bronze/Iron Age immigrants. If U106 was present in Central Europe at the time of the earlier migrations it would also have been part of them.

Is the difference in U106/U152 ratio between north and south due to the small sample size or is this a genuine difference? Is there any other data to verify this?

2 things that might have made a difference bwteen north and south are the normans overrunning the top of Wales but striking alliances with inidigenous princes in the south and, I think, perhaps the greater effect would be an influx of english in the 17 & 1800s seeking employment in the coal mines and steel works around Cardiff/Swansea. Did Busby filter these out (is it possible even?)

Busby's South Wales sample of 9 was taken from Haverfordwest in SW Wales. Southern Pembrokeshire was for a long time referred to as "Little England Beyond Wales" because Henry I planted a colony of Flemish/English there in the 12th century to subjugate the native Welsh. This area has been English speaking for centuries.

The North Wales samples were from Anglesey and Abergele. Given the history of the North Wales coast we might expect a small trace of Viking input from the 10th century settlement on Anglesey and some further English input following the Edwardian conquest 1282. And then again, more English have settled along the North Wales coast in modern times.

Yes, and I really think a sample of only 9 is just too small and should probably be disregarded or at least taken with a huge grain of salt.

Abergele was an old Roman trading town and has an exceptionally high level of E1b1b to show for it. The Roman presence there may also account for the relatively elevated level of U152 in the North Wales sample. The P312xL21,U152 is also exceptionally high there when compared with its frequency in other western locations. Were the Romans some kind of contributing factor in that regard, as well?

I believe Capelli et al 2003 sampled 59 people in Haverfordwest but in those days it was just plain old R1b so may not be much use to us now.

I don't think we can rule out a Roman input in North Wales but I would expect it to be less than in England. North Wales was one of the least Romanised areas in Southern Britain if we consider Roman towns, villas and farmsteads.

Basically, we need much better DNA sampling for North Wales. Many of the towns along the coast such as Rhyl, Rhuddlan, Abergele, Conwy and Llandudno have been subject to English influence in medieval and in modern times.

Away from the coast in areas such as Bala, Blaenau Ffestiniog and Llanberis the towns and villages are more 'Welsh.'

I agree we need better sampling from North Wales and from South Wales, too.

The thing about Abergele, and the reason I made the comments I did, is that there was a Roman trading town there, and fairly recent testing came up with the off-the-charts-for-Britain frequency of about 39% E1b1b there. I think E1b1b runs something like 3% and less for the rest of the Isles.

With respect to U106 in Ireland, many of the surnames on the map are actually English so it is likely that U106 arrived in Ireland with English and Lowland Scots plantation settlers in 16/17th centuries.

Absolutely, but it does not in any way mean that U106 wasn't also amongst the Bronze/Iron Age immigrants. If U106 was present in Central Europe at the time of the earlier migrations it would also have been part of them.

While that is possible, it doesn't seem likely to me. I could be wrong, and this is just my opinion, but I don't believe U106 made it to Britain until the Iron Age, perhaps first with the Belgae in the 1st century B.C. The big influx of U106 came with the Anglo-Saxons and, subsequently, with the Vikings.

That is why U106 is so relatively infrequent in Ireland: it didn't get there until comparatively recent times, mainly with the English.

Last I heard, U106 has its greatest variance in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland. If that has changed, I haven't heard about it. Its greatest modern frequency is in the Netherlands. I think U106 was involved in the expansion of the Germanic tribes after about 200 BC and was in Eastern Europe until then. Had it been right across the Channel from Britain all the time, its frequency in the Isles would be higher.

A number of scholars believed and still believe that the Beaker Folk were the original speakers of Celtic languages and perhaps even of Italo-Celtic. Recently, y-dna was obtained from a couple of ancient male Beaker Folk corpses at Kromsdorf, Germany, dated at about 2600 B.C. Both corpses were R1bxU106 (read that as "R1b NOT U106"). Not far from Kromsdorf, at Eulau, corpses from the Corded Ware culture dated to about the same time were found to be R1a. Corded Ware tends to be associated with Germans and Balto-Slavs, while Beaker is associated with Celts. Is that right? I'm not sure, but it is what it is.

Of course, two corpses are not much of a sample, but it is interesting that two Bronze Age Beaker corpses, in the heart of what is now U106-rich Germany, were U106-. Perhaps U106 was part of the Corded Ware culture and still farther east at that time. That's what I think, anyway.

Of course, two corpses are not much of a sample, but it is interesting that two Bronze Age Beaker corpses, in the heart of what is now U106-rich Germany, were U106-.

U106 didn't suddenly materialize in a tribe of its own one day. It would have cropped up as a mutant in amongst plain old vanilla R1b*s. As the mutant's offspring multiplied they would have been part of a mixed R1b* & U106 group (+ probably others).

The fact that two beaker corpses have been found to be R1b* means absolutely nothing in relation to U106.

Away from the coast in areas such as Bala, Blaenau Ffestiniog and Llanberis the towns and villages are more 'Welsh.'

Do you realise what the populations of those places are? To say they are deserted is an exaggeration, but it is not far off..

As it happens I know North Wales very well.

Blaenau has a population of around 5,000 which is bigger than both Llangefni and Llanidloes, two towns that were sampled by Capelli in 2003. Llanberis and Bala are around the 2,000 mark which is similar to Llanidloes.

Once you get away from the populated North Wales coast much of the interior is made up of small towns, isolated farmsteads and hamlets. That's just the nature of rural, mountainous country and always has been the case for North Wales.

With respect to U106 in Ireland, many of the surnames on the map are actually English so it is likely that U106 arrived in Ireland with English and Lowland Scots plantation settlers in 16/17th centuries.

Absolutely, but it does not in any way mean that U106 wasn't also amongst the Bronze/Iron Age immigrants. If U106 was present in Central Europe at the time of the earlier migrations it would also have been part of them.

Anyway, getting back on topic. What exactly is the evidence that U106 was present in Britain or Ireland in the Bronze/Iron Age?

If it did arrive in the Isles in the Bronze Age why is so rare in Wales, Ireland and Highland Scotland today?

Of course, two corpses are not much of a sample, but it is interesting that two Bronze Age Beaker corpses, in the heart of what is now U106-rich Germany, were U106-.

U106 didn't suddenly materialize in a tribe of its own one day. It would have cropped up as a mutant in amongst plain old vanilla R1b*s. As the mutant's offspring multiplied they would have been part of a mixed R1b* & U106 group (+ probably others).

The fact that two beaker corpses have been found to be R1b* means absolutely nothing in relation to U106.

Yeah, U106 arose in an L11 population, but you said it could could have been among the Bronze Age immigrants into Ireland. I don't think that is likely, and I said why.

Just to recap: There isn't much U106 in the Celtic Fringe countries today. The Beaker Folk are thought to have been the earliest speakers of Celtic. The Bronze Age Beaker y-dna that we have - which is, admittedly, not much - is R1bxU106 (NOT U106), and that is from central Germany, an area that today is supposedly loaded with U106. The oldest U106 is from eastern Europe, which may indicate that that is where U106 originated. Had U106 begun to arrive in the Isles as early as the Bronze Age, there should be more of it there now. Instead, it reaches its greatest frequencies in the very places where the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings held sway and drops like a rock in the old homelands of the Celts.

On the other hand, we have known historical events which easily account for what U106 is present in the Isles now. No need to recount those. They are well known.

Had U106 begun to arrive in the Isles as early as the Bronze Age, there should be more of it there now.

Should it? So, using that logic, there should be more of the original wooly mammoth hunters there now too.

You are ignoring the fact that populations decline, even disappear completely, due to famines, disasters or war. It is quite feasible that the early Irish or British or anywhereelseish populations starved or were murdered by newer groups.

Perhaps the late bronze age inhabitants of certain areas were slaughtered by early Iron Age newcomers? Perhaps these early Iron age inhabitants were then slaughtered themselves by late Iron Age newcomers?

Honestly, I think you are ignoring the elephant in the room, namely, the large influx of Anglo-Saxons during the immediate post-Roman Period from areas rich in U106, followed by a similar influx during the Viking Period, again from areas rich in U106.

The spotty appearance of U106 in the Celtic Fringe countries can also be accounted for by the historical advent mainly of the English but perhaps a bit earlier of the Vikings and the Normans. That is why U106 is most frequent where the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings prevailed in England (Angle Land).

We can agree to disagree, but I don't think there is much reason to believe U106 made it to the Isles before the Iron Age. I'm guessing the earliest U106 in Britain came with the Belgae in the 1st century B.C.

The thing about Abergele, and the reason I made the comments I did, is that there was a Roman trading town there, and fairly recent testing came up with the off-the-charts-for-Britain frequency of about 39% E1b1b there. I think E1b1b runs something like 3% and less for the rest of the Isles.

I agree, the Eb1b1 in Abergele is interesting. Only more testing in Wales will show whether or not it is a one off anomaly. I suspect that it is. Hg E was found at 4% in Llangefni, 3% in Haverfordwest and if we look at the FTDNA Wales/Cymru project then Eb1b1 is very rare.

You are ignoring the fact that populations decline, even disappear completely, due to famines, disasters or war. It is quite feasible that the early Irish or British or anywhereelseish populations starved or were murdered by newer groups.

Totally agree about the potential effect of famines and war on haplogroups but are you suggesting that such disasters only impacted on the Celtic fringe which is why U106 is low in those areas, but that England was not affected?

Because going by Busby's data (limited in itself) U106 runs at around 18-26% in England so is quite common.

Do you accept that the Anglo-Saxons brought the vast bulk of this U106 to Britain? I am trying to understand your exact position.

Yeah, U106 arose in an L11 population, but you said it could could have been among the Bronze Age immigrants into Ireland. I don't think that is likely, and I said why.

1. And P312 arose in that same population. But is there any clear indication that these two groups (U106 and P312) can be considered to have migrated separately and via different routes ever after, as is always silently assumed ? (if you look at a SNP map for both, then the distribution over Europe is not too different between the two.)

2. (unrelated) I think to have once heard in a documentary on the subject there are 9 migrations known from the continent to the British Isles (e.g. Anglo-Saxon, Viking, etc.). Is there a reliable resource on the web that describes what is know from "classic science" about these migrations ? (most people here seem to have studied the subject in depth, so it appears a reasonable question to ask; Google wouldn't give me a reliability score.)